Lurking JWs: Do people really need to know and use the word "Jehovah" or other language equivalents, to truly know God?

by Island Man 20 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  Island Man

  Watchtower puts forth the argument that you can't really know God unless you know and use the appellation "Jehovah" or its equivalent in other languages. Is this really true? I say it's not true and I will demonstrate to you why.

  God's name is not a mere label that we have to use to communicate with him so that he knows we're talking to him. God can read hearts and will know that a worshiper is addressing him even if that worshiper does not use a form of the word "Jehovah". For example, the gospels show that Jesus never directly addressed God in prayer with the name "Jehovah". He always addressed him as "Father". So one does not need to use the name "Jehovah" for God to know that he is addressing Him.

  Also, it is often not necessary to use "Jehovah" to distinguish him from other gods when conversing with others about which god you worship. Unlike ancient times when polytheism was rampant and worshipers of "Jehovah" were in the minority, the world today has a very high percentage of theists that worship "Jehovah" (the god of the bible) and one often only needs to use the word "God" or say he is christian for others to know which god he worships.
  

  So really, the labeling and distinguishing functions of the name is not as important as JWs make it out to be. So what about the name is important? It has to be the meaning of the name. Since God's name has a descriptive meaning, then God's name is actually a description of who he is. Therefore knowing god's name is really about knowing who god is - his character or nature as described by the meaning of the name. So look at this:

  "Jehovah" means "He Causes to Become" and Watchtower says it alludes to the fact that God causes himself or his creations to become whatever he wishes so that his will can be accomplished. Think about that meaning for a while. Can you think of any words or titles that encompasses the meaning of the name? Of course you can! "Creator". Doesn't a creator quite literally cause things to become? What about the term "Almighty" or "All-Powerful"? Do these not also convey the impression of one who has the power to do anything - to cause anyone or anything to become anything he desires? Really, the expression "He Causes to Become" is just a fancy way of saying "He that does things", "He that makes things", "the Prime Causer", "the living God", "the active God" - the God that actually has the power to do things and cause things to happen, unlike the other lifeless idol gods, etc.

  Now honestly ask yourself this question: Does a person have to know the word "Jehovah" and it's meaning, in order to know these things about the God of the bible? If a person studied a modern KJV that uses "LORD" and omits "Jehovah", would he not still learn from it that God is Almighty, Creator, Prime Causer? Would he not still learn that God has the power to cause anyone or anything to become whatever desires it or them to become? So you see a person does not have to know the word "Jehovah" to know God's name - to know that God causes to become. For the very name of God is demonstrated by his dealings recorded in the bible. So everyone who is familiar with any bible unavoidably comes to know God's name whether or not the bible contains the word "Jehovah"!

  So really, JWs are making a big fuss over the use of a label - the meaning of which is known by virtually all bible-reading christians even without them having to know the actual label, for the whole bible reveals the name of God and so it is foolish to claim that persons don't know God's name, just because they don't know the word "Jehovah". It's shallow, legalistic thinking on the part of the JWs. They focus on telling people to know and use a word when the very persons already know the essence and meaning of that word even without literally knowing the word itself.

  So when non-JW christians use titles like "God", "Father" and "Lord", and in their hearts ascribe to these titles the same connotations of "Almighty", "Prime Causer", etc, and think of him as someone who has the power to cause anyone or anything to become whatever he desires - aren't they actually using God's name in their hearts, to the extent that they know the meaning of the name and ascribe it to a label? Think about it.
  
• 

  dbq407

  The best part is they say his name is the most important in the universe and they openly admit that the name Jehovah isn't the most accurate.
• 

  Island Man

  Here's an interesting scripture that applies to JWs and the issue of them judging others as not being christians because they don't use "Jehovah":

  "Who are you to judge the house servant of another? To his own master he stands or falls. Indeed, he will be made to stand, for Jehovah can make him stand." - Romans 14:4

  This verse is full of irony when applied to JWs' judgmental attitude on the use of the word "Jehovah". By saying persons aren't true christians if they don't use "Jehovah", JWs are actually denying the meaning of God's name! How so?

  Look at what the last sentence in the verse says: "he will be made to stand, for Jehovah can make him stand."

  In other words, Jehovah - He that causes to become - can cause those who don't use the word "Jehovah" to be standing as true christians. But by saying you can't be a true christian if you're not using "Jehovah", JWs are denying God's ability to cause such ones to be standing. They are saying the lack of usage of the name "Jehovah" is greater than what the name stands for. They are paradoxically denying the meaning of the name of God in their quest to promote the use of "Jehovah". LOL.
  
• 

  defender of truth

  For example, the gospels show that Jesus never directly addressed God in prayer with the name "Jehovah". He always addressed him as "Father".
  

  Great point, and one that completely debunks the whole JW concept that: 'God gave us his name in the Bible, therefore we must use it when we speak about him, and when we speak to him'.
  

  It's simple, really.
  

  How many people talk to their human father using his name?

  At some point, your dad will have told you his name.

  Let's say your Dad told you his name is Bill.

  Do you then feel obligated to use his name every time you speak to him? Or every time you speak to people about him?

  (My father Bill is great. Bill is wonderful. I really love Bill.)

  Would that even be respectful?

  Would it indicate love and respect if you were to call him anything other than Papa, Dad, Father etc.? (variations of terms meaning 'Father' may depend on your country, you get the point.)

  Even if your Dad accepts you calling him Bill all the time, would he then refuse to listen to any of his other children unless they also called him Bill when they spoke to him?

  No loving father would do that.
  

  Why Should We Use God's Name? — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

  1. Why has God given himself a name?

  Undoubtedly, you like to be called by your personal name rather than by a title, such as “man,” “mister,” “madam,” or “woman.” A name helps to distinguish you as an individual. God is called by such titles as “Sovereign Lord,” “God Almighty,” and “Grand Creator.” (Genesis 15:2; 17:1; Ecclesiastes 12:1) But he has also given himself a name to help us to establish a personal relationship with him. In English, God’s personal name is Jehovah.—Read Isaiah 42:8.
  

  http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2012412
  

  Let me highlight the childish logic used here:
  

  "Undoubtedly, you like to be called by your personal name rather than by a title, such as “man,” “mister,” “madam,” or “woman.” A name helps to distinguish you as an individual."

  Undoubtedly, you would like to be called by your personal name when your children are speaking to you...

  No?

  Of course not.

  "Son, I would like you to call me Bill from now on. No more of this Father or Papa nonsense. It is not acceptable to talk to me without using my personal name" ;)

  A 'title' (or non-personal name, depending on how you view the word) such as Dad, or Pa, would do just fine.

  Wouldn't you agree?

  www.someecards.com/life/fathers-day/dad-daddy-pa-pop-or-father-a-guide-to-titles-for-new-fathers/
  

  The logic used in that Watchtower only works if you are just talking to a friend, not to a parent.

  You would usually call a buddy from school or work by their first name. Obviously.

  But would you talk to your parents using their personal name?

  Even if you viewed your father as a close friend, and he had told you his name, you still would likely not call him by his personal name.

  Even if you chose to do so, and he accepted that, there would certainly be no obligation to do so.

  It is not as though you have more than one Father, so you need to use his name to avoid any confusion.

  Yet Jehovah's Witnesses claim that anyone who doesn't use the personal name of their Heavenly Father, like they do, is not a true worshipper!

  Sorry for the long post. :)
  
• 

  Carol1111

  I just looked up the Romans 14v4 quotation and the word for God is theos.

  Rom 14:4 WhoG5101 artG1488 thouG4771 that judgestG2919 another man'sG245 servant?G3610 to his ownG2398 masterG2962 he standethG4739 orG2228 falleth.G4098 Yea,G1161 he shall be holden up:G2476 forG1063 GodG2316 isG2076 ableG1415 to make him stand.G2476 G846

  I recommend e-sword if you want to check on the original language.
• 

  Half banana

  I think it is worth realizing that it is only in fable where the prime characters names have significant meanings. Can you imagine the monarchy in Britain calling their newborn infants Rex or Prince? It is only where there is no legitimacy as in stories where the names of characters require linguistic or semantic clues for reinforcement.
  

  Jehovah is drawn from the Latinized version of YHVH in the English language. In the earliest KJV, the name of this god is rendered Iehovah demonstrating the comparatively recent development of the letter J (in English) arising from a capitalized initial letter 'I'.

  If we trace the history of Jehovah as a divinity, the fact that he began as a Canaanite god, the son of El and brother of Chemosh and sixty eight other brothers...somewhat diminishes the 'almighty-ness' which was later attributed to him. Yahweh is depicted as a cow-horned idol sitting with his female consort Ashera in early stone reliefs from Canaan (but don't tell the JW org!)

  The concept of gods or God constantly evolves since religion is not based on fact but mental constructs i.e. the human imagination. Ideas of greatness and power are borrowed from earlier literature to give weight to the holiness of a religious teaching.

  The JW org has done this very thing by appropriating the name Jehovah and loading it with doomsday connections and power as their own identifying mark.
• 

  StarTrekAngel

  In my view, the fact that Jesus called him "Father" rather than "Jehovah" doesn't really say much. Like others explained, the relationship being known, you would know exactly who Jesus was referring to when he said "father". In the same tone, using the name back then, again as many have pointed, was necessary due to the number of other Gods people had in those days. Nowadays, not only is this the most well known God (specially if you live in the western side of the planet) but also there are other religions that have began to adopt the name and therefore calling him Jehovah does not immediately isolate you from the rest anymore.

  Where JWs fail is in understanding the analogy of uniqueness that God seeks. Is like saying Elvis was your best friend or would be if he was alive, just because you know his name and use it. With so many Elvis impersonators around, would you be able to pinpoint exactly who you refer to by using only his name? Or do you need to show other evidence that makes him unique?

  If JWs grasped that concept, they would realize that is more important to say "our God" than it is to say "Jehovah" or even never use the generic term "God". It would be like naming your dog "Dog"
• 

  Vanderhoven7

  The name "Jehovah" never appears in the New Testament - period (found in none of the ancient manuscripts). Yet the WTS feel to add it 237 times. Unlike Jehovah's Witnesses it is the name of Jesus that is emphasized constantly in the NT.
• 

  Half banana

  Island man, I know your post is addressed to lurkers but how can anyone "truly know" an invisible spirit. 'Taint possible...
• 

  StarTrekAngel

  Vanderhoven7. Do you have any good links that show credible evidence that YHVH never appears in the new testament? I am just looking for research sources.